28 Feb 2019

The global struggle of teachers

Jerry White

On almost every continent, teachers have come to the forefront of the struggle against government austerity and levels of social inequality not seen since the 1920s. Teachers have played a key role in the resurgence of the class struggle that broke out across the world in 2018 and has accelerated in the opening months of this year.
Three thousand teachers are currently on strike in Oakland, California in the latest in a series of teacher walkouts in the United States, involving 71,000 educators during the first eight weeks of 2019. The strike follows last month’s walkout in Los Angeles, the nation’s second largest school district, a strike in Denver, Colorado, and a two-day statewide walkout in West Virginia, where the strike a year ago sparked the largest rebellion of teachers across the US in decades.
Teachers and school workers accounted for 380,000 of the nearly half-million workers involved in work stoppages in the US last year, the largest number since 1986. There have been increasing calls for strikes in many states, including Oklahoma and Arizona, where statewide strikes took place last year.
In São Paulo, Brazil, the largest city in the Americas, teachers have gone on strike for the second time this year against pension cuts. In Mexico, teachers in Michoacán and Oaxaca struck and set up blockades earlier this month to fight layoffs and government-backed “school reform.”
Earlier this month, teachers and child care workers struck in Berlin, Germany; educators in Portugal joined a general strike; teachers in France joined the Yellow Vest protests against the “President of the rich,” Emanuel Macron; and more than 100,000 teachers from primary school to higher education are set to carry out the first national strike on March 15 in the Netherlands.
Teachers have also struck in Morocco and Zimbabwe amid growing opposition against the reduced education budgets and school privatization throughout Africa, and tens of thousands of teachers in Tamil Nadu, in southern India, struck last month for improved pay and conditions.
This movement is being driven by record levels of social inequality throughout the world. The social counterrevolution, which was initiated by UK Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher and US President Ronald Reagan four decades ago, was accelerated after the global financial crash of 2008. Capitalist governments, led by the Obama administration in the US, spent trillions to buy up the toxic assets of the banks and provide unlimited credit to re-inflate the stock markets and the private fortunes of the financial criminals. To pay for this, political parties of every stripe made “austerity” the watchword.
Two recent reports highlight the historic transfer of wealth from the bottom to the top in the US since 2008.
A new research paper by Gabriel Zucman, an economics professor at the University of California, Berkeley, found that the share of total household wealth controlled by the top 0.1 percent richest adults was at the highest level since 1929, when this tiny elite hoarded 25 percent of the wealth. “US wealth concentration seems to have returned to levels last seen during the Roaring Twenties,” wrote Zucman, who noted that it could be even higher because of the ability of the super-rich to hide their wealth in off-shore accounts.
A report by the US Commerce Department’s Bureau of Economic Analysis found that employee pay and benefits as a percentage of gross domestic income fell to 52.7 percent in last year’s third quarter, the fourth straight quarterly decline. Labor’s share of domestic income has steadily declined since 1970, when it was 59 percent. It continues to be the lowest since the end of World War II. At the same time, the share of domestic income going to corporate profits has climbed from less than 12 percent in the 1980s to more than 20 percent today.
The global economic crisis was also used by the financial elite to loot public assets and get its hands on the world “education market,” which will be worth an estimated $10 trillion by 2030. A recent book pointed to the role of the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, USAID, and the UK’s Department for International Development (DFID) in funding school privatization schemes around the world.
In the US, the Obama administration, which found endless resources to bail out Wall Street, starved the public schools of resources and used the manufactured crisis to expand for-profit charter schools. By 2016, the latest date available, 25 of the 50 US states were still spending less per pupil than they did before the Great Recession, leaving a $19 billion shortfall. The number of public-school employees today is 170,000 below pre-2008 levels, even though student enrollment has risen 1.5 million, and in 38 states, the average annual salary of teachers is lower than it was in 2009.
The universal character of the attack on teachers and public education and what underlies it raises a number of fundamental issues. First is the role of the unions throughout the world, which are opposed to any struggle because they are aligned with the capitalist parties and accept the entire framework of austerity and social inequality.
In Oakland, the union rejected demands by rank-and-file teachers to include opposition to budget cuts in the strike demands, even though the district plans to pay for any pay increases by slashing millions of dollars from educational services and closing schools. The Oakland Education Association is colluding with the state Democratic Party to reach a rotten deal that is entirely acceptable to the corporate and financial elite, and like previous strikes across the country, betrays the fight to defend the right to public education.
This is true of the unions throughout the world. In the face of the global attack on public education, jobs and living standards, the nationalist and pro-capitalist unions have collaborated with their respective governments and capitalist owners to lower labor costs and corporate taxes in order to make their “own” countries more competitive.
That is why the building of new organizations of struggle, controlled by workers themselves and independent of the unions, is a burning question. Teachers must form rank-and-file committees, which base themselves on what teachers and students need, not what the powers-that-be say is affordable.
Teachers have won popular support because they are fighting for fundamental rights and because all workers are facing the same conditions—declining incomes and skyrocketing living costs, precarious employment and endless attacks on social rights, including health care and pensions—which were won over generations of struggle.
The developing movement among teachers is an initial expression of a rebellion that will inevitably extend into broader layers of the working class, particularly industrial workers in key sectors such as auto, steel and other areas of manufacturing. It is a movement that will be compelled to address not only the immediate questions of wages and working conditions, but the great issues that face workers in every country—social inequality, the shredding of democratic rights, the growth of authoritarian forms of rule and the mounting danger of catastrophic war.
Strikes alone cannot resolve what workers confront. The logic of the international resurgence of the class struggle is the necessity for the working class to fight to take political power in its own hands and reorganize the world economy on the basis of social need, not private profit.
Only by expropriating the financial aristocracy and carrying out the socialist reorganization of economic life can the vast wealth produced by the working class be used to raise the material and cultural level of the masses, guarantee a free and quality public education to all, and rid mankind of poverty, exploitation and war.
The premium is therefore on the building of a new, socialist and internationalist leadership that can make the working class conscious of this necessity. That is the fight being undertaken by the ICFI and its sections.

Trump-Kim Summit in Hanoi: Optimism Despite Impediments

Sandip Kumar Mishra

The second US-North Korea summit meet, eight months after the Singapore Summit, is scheduled to take place in Hanoi on 27-28 February 2019. There is skepticism regarding the potential outcomes of this meeting, based on three important factors.
First, the US and North Korea have not changed their fundamental positions in the past eight months. Both of them are primarily concerned with their own foreign policy goals and remain unwilling to concede much ground. In fact, US President Donald Trump, while making conciliatory statements about Kim Jong-un, has also given more space to ‘hawks’ such as Vice President Mike Pence, National Security Advisor John Bolton, and US Special Representative for North Korean Policy Mark Lambert. Kim, too, has been driving a hard bargain. At one point he disputed North Korea’s denuclearisation as the sole goal and put forth preconditions in a North Korean official daily. The US would like to address denuclearisation followed by easing of sanctions, whereas North Korea prefers it the other way round. In this atmosphere of a clear divergence in fundamental goals, to expect anything substantial from the Hanoi summit would be naive.  
Second, for the success of any summit meet, it is important to lay the ground work in advance. The more public meeting between top leaders is generally symbolic and its contents based on the process, roadmaps and timelines agreed on at earlier discussions. North Korea avoided pre-summit meetings after Singapore, and did not allow US special envoy for North Korea Stephen Biegun to visit North Korea until this month. North Korean representative Kim Yong Chol's November 2018 meeting with Mike Pompeo was also cancelled, and Kim did not meet with Pompeo when he visited Pyongyang. With pre-summit exchanges at various levels of government clearly absent, a detailed and comprehensive plan for North Korean denuclearisation and concomitant US security guarantee during the Hanoi summit seems improbable.
Third, North Korea and the US came to negotiating table following reports of a breakdown in communications between China and North Korea, and more stringent imposition of Chinese sanctions on the latter. In less than a year since, Chinese and North Korean leaders had three summit meetings with better communications in place and a closer alignment of positions. China has openly demanded a proportionate easing of sanctions on the basis of "some positive developments" regarding North Korean denuclearisation. North Korea has augmented its strategic depth, and in this changed scenario, it will not be easy to extract unilateral benefits from North Korea in the Hanoi Summit.
Having laid the foundations of the prevailing environment of skepticism, it is important to also acknowledge a few important changes to arrive at a more holistic overview of the summit.  
First, there has been some change in position. Even though the broad approach has not undergone any significant change, Trump and Kim have shown some flexibility. They are aware the lack of any movement whatsoever in Hanoi would spell the end of the US-North Korea engagement process, which, in the long-run, will have negative implications for their eventual goals as well as the domestic environment. It is for this reason that Trump has been indicating that he is in no 'hurry'. He has also said that the US will continue with the rapprochement if there is clear evidence of progress. In addition, they have the hindsight of knowing what went wrong during the Singapore Summit, and neither will want to commit the same mistakes again.
Two, South Korea, which has been pivotal to the current phase of US-North Korea engagement, is equally concerned about the Hanoi Summit. It has been in touch with both North Korea and the US and is attempting to bridge the gap between their strategic goals. In fact, South Korean President Moon Jae-in has long displayed an interest in good bilateral relations with North Korea, and inter-Korea dynamics can suffer if there is no parallel progress between the US and North Korea. There is speculation that if Hanoi hits a dead-end, it could also lead to a rift in South Korea-US ties.
Third, if we assume that there has been an important tactical shift even if the larger US and North Korean strategic goals remain unchanged, it means that there is still a possibility of charting a forward course, if not a final and comprehensive agreement on denuclearisation. The most important reason for the deadlock so far has been the US insistence on complete, verifiable, and irreversible denuclearisation in a limited time span. If the US agrees to an incremental process, progress would be perhaps easier to achieve. Further, if the US also corrects its misperception that North Korea came to the negotiating table because of ‘maximum pressure’, it may be possible to arrive at a quid pro quo deal.
Overall, it is indeed difficult to predict the outcomes of the Hanoi Summit, and there are obvious reasons to not be optimistic. However, there are also elements that suggest that important progress can be made.  

A Post-INF Nuclear World

Summaiya Khan

President Donald Trump's withdrawal of the US from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty raising complex security concerns with ramifications that could upset an already fractious global nuclear weapons environment.
Background
Despite the 1987 Treaty making a considerable amount of progress, it was not insulated from the mutual trust deficit that emblematised the Cold War era, which continues to this day. The first claims of non-compliance arose under President Obama, with the US alleging in its July 2014 Compliance Report that Russia was in violation of its INF Treaty obligations “not to possess, produce, or flight-test” a ground-launched cruise missile with a range of 500 to 5,500 km or “to possess or produce launchers of such missiles.” In March 2017, a top US official confirmed press reports that Russia had begun deploying the non-compliant missile. On 20 October 2018, President Trump announced his intention to “terminate” the INF Treaty, citing Russian non-compliance and concerns about China’s intermediate-range missile arsenal. On 2 February 2 2019, the Trump administration finally declared a suspension of US obligations under the INF Treaty and formally announced its intention to withdraw in six months.
This move by the US has led to Russia officially announcing the suspension of its treaty obligations.
Implications
The abrogation of the INF Treaty by both the US and Russia legitimises the deployment of intermediate range missiles. It also brings into question the future of the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START), which is to expire soon.  
According to the 2018 US Nuclear Posture Review (NPR), Beijing is steaming forward with the expansion of its cruise missile arsenal, potentially neutralising the capability of US warships that could seek to approach the Chinese coastline during a standoff. The US pullout from the INF will allow it the opportunity to balance China’s nuclear capability by re-enforcing its missile capability in the Pacific region. China is currently equipped with sophisticated cruise missiles that can be launched from land, air, sea, and sub-surface platforms. Returning to intermediate range systems will equip US forces with the ability to strike targets that are highly difficult to penetrate for conventional weapons. This will inevitably lead to the strengthening of a global arms race.
There are very clear implications for Europe as well, which faces an immediate threat with the disavowal of the INF. The Treaty required the former Soviet Union to renounce hundreds of missiles directed towards Western Europe. With its termination, Russia is no longer bound by this condition. Of particular relevance is the 9M728 (SSC-7) cruise missile, a part of the Russian Iskander-M tactical missile system. Iskander-M missiles were recently deployed to Russia’s Kaliningrad enclave, within clear reach of parts of NATO members, which is likely only to exacerbate tensions further. The SSC-8 and SSC-7 both use ballistic and cruise systems and with slight adjustment to the flight trajectory, can strike targets in most of Europe.
Russia, for its part, has expressed concerns about the US missile defence system in eastern Europe that can also be used to fire cruise missiles, using targets for missile defence tests with similar characteristics to INF Treaty-prohibited intermediate range missiles, and making armed drones that are equivalent to ground-launched cruise missiles.
To sum up, the dissolution of the INF Treaty by the US and Russia will only contribute to the strengthening of Cold War hostilities. The US will face a litmus test as a security provider, whether it is in Asia or Europe. Russia, China and the US will further resort to the vertical proliferation of weapons of mass destruction (WMD), and the stockpiling of missiles by each of these countries will be to gain a sense of one-upmanship, rather than deterrence, which has traditionally been the norm.Symbolically, this withdrawal from the INF casts the US in a new light – as that of an irresponsible nuclear weapons state, which is at odds with the narrative that has existed until now, that is its its role as a responsible actor in the global nuclear environment.

Liberal International Order and its Discontents

Lydia Walker

In the past two years, in response to the activities and rhetoric of the current US presidential administration, a slew of prominent voices in the study of international relations have bemoaned the demise of an international order, of US power utilised through international institutions and multilateral alliances.An advertisement published in The New York Times in June 2018, and a subsequent petition that continues to circulate online, signed by a broad coalition of well-respected international relations scholars promoted this perspective. These are people whose work has shaped the field of international relations to such a degree that their names bear no small weight. Therefore, the petition became emblematic of a perspective that a liberal international order has been in existence for a significant portion of the 20th century, that its continued existence is under threat, and that this threat creates significant urgency. Due to the stature and number of the scholars signing their names to this point of view, I will call them ‘the consensus’.
In response, as is usual in academic debates, particularly those drawing on real-world events, a group of scholars critiqued the consensus. They pointed out the a-historical elision of post-1945 institutions such as the UN and NATO with post-1990s institutions such as the EU and World Trade Organisation (WTO). They asked, has there ever really been a liberal international order, an international system that was ‘liberal’, ‘international’, and ‘ordered’? Why had the US chosen multilateralism in Europe and bilateral treaties in Asia? Could ‘liberal’ be replaced with ‘American’ in notions of a liberal international order? And see how this international order reflected the projection of US’ economic and military power alongside certain sets of norms and politics? An excellent over-view of this debate is in a recent podcast with Samuel Moyn and Jack Goldsmith.
I presented the debate between the consensus and the critique to a cluster of junior and senior scholars at the Institute of Peace and Conflict Studies in New Delhi in December 2018. There, there was no debate. From the perspective of Indian foreign relations since independence and Non-Alignment, through to the economic liberalisation of the 1990s, the narrative of a liberal international order had always been, to paraphrase Stephen Wertheim, US nationalism without the name, and US internationalism without solidarity. This was old news for those who studied and participated in international relations from an Indian perspective. It is not accidental that another US critic of the alleged demise of an alleged liberal international order is Paul Staniland, who has extensive research experience in South Asia.
As with many academic debates, this one seems low stakes compared to the urgent global crises of rights, refugees, violence and environmental change—even as the debate is in direct response to these issues. When I presented this debate in Delhi, I expected the discussion would grow heated, and through those sparks to gain illumination. I was drawn to the debate as both a citizen (of the US) and as a scholar of the gaps in institutions of international order and of the peoples these institutions have been designed to exclude. But what was illuminating in Delhi was the agreement, the lack of debate, about a set of issues that on another side of the world merited contestation. In Delhi, the critique of liberal international order was the consensus.
What does it say about the current US debate about liberal international order that there is no debate in Delhi? What other debates in international relations might benefit from greater understanding of how US power has been viewed from those who see (and feel) it from beyond its national borders?These questions are not simply pleas for empathy and awareness, though that would not be misplaced. Rather they are a push for understanding how strategies, and their surrounding discourses—such as notions of a post Second World War liberal international order—reflect a US-centrism both in its consensus and its critique.
In his keynote at the January 2019 All-India International and Area Studies Convention, current international relations scholar and past international relations practitioner Shivshankar Menon made the case for improving the study of international relations in India. He mentioned how most analysts of Indian international relations and Indian international history—Indian and non-Indian—receive their training outside India, mostly in the US and UK. This point also works both ways—study of international relations and its history that does not take western-oriented debates, theories, and political geographies as its point of departure is as necessary for scholars based in the global north as in the global south. This is not an original proposal. Yet the fact that debate on one side of the world is consensus on the other, shows that it remains an open proposition.

23 Feb 2019

Zawadi Africa Education Fund Undergraduate Scholarship for Women 2019

Application Deadline: 5th April 2019

Offered Annually? Yes


Eligible Countries: Kenya, Uganda, Ghana and Mozambique

About the Award: Zawadi Africa Education Fund is a leadership development program that provides university scholarships and leadership development and life skills training to academically gifted but financially disadvantaged African girls, with the objective of developing a pipeline of young African women leaders.
Zawadi Africa was formed with the belief that together with a world class education and the right character development, these young African women will be able to return to their home countries empowered and equipped with the skills needed to make significant, positive impact in their communities in a continent where traditionally women have not had a voice in the development of their community.

Eligibility: To be eligible to apply for this scholarship, the following criteria must be met:
  • A girl who has completed her secondary school examination i.e. The Kenya Certificate of Secondary Examination (KCSE)
  • Has demonstrated academic excellence (A Plain or A Minus)
  • Has demonstrated leadership qualities e.g. in school as a prefect, in the community, church, leadership in peer related activities etc.
  • Has overcome insurmountable odds such as serious financial challenges, oppressive social-cultural practices such as early marriages and Female Genital Mutilation (FGM) etc. in order to attain academic excellence.
  • Come from a financially disadvantaged background.
  • Has demonstrated clear financial need
Selection Criteria: includes excellent academics, extracurricular involvement, leadership potential and financial need.

Selection: The Admission decision is entirely dependent on the Universities’ Admission Boards. Shortlisted candidates will be called for an interview a month after the deadline of this application.

How to Apply: Application this year is for Kenya, Uganda and Mozambique. Deadline is April 5th, 2019.
  1. If you meet the above criteria, ensure that you download and complete every part of the application form. Your application will only be considered if it completely filled.
  2. Attach a one page biography and a passport photo. The biography should be TYPED and highlight your family and educational background, your aspirations, financial status, as well as hobbies and activities that you have undertaken while in school and in your community.
  3. Attach a 500-650 word essay on ONLY ONE of three topics listed on page seven.
  4. Attach a copy of your high school leaving certificate and K.C.S.E result slip as well as copies of high school certificates that show your involvement in extracurricular activities and leadership related initiatives.
  5. Attach a signed recommendation letter from your class teacher or head teacher.
  6. Attach a copy of your birth certificate and your National Identity Card (if you have one).
  7. Attach a letter from your local chief confirming his knowledge of your family and yourself. The letter should preferably be written on a government letter headed document.
  8. Any false statements, omissions or forged documents will lead to automatic disqualification.
  9. 9. Submit a Hard Copy of this application form and the required supporting documents on or before the deadline (6th April, 2018) to the designated offices written in the application forms.

Visit Scholarship Webpage for Details

IWMF Elizabeth Neuffer Fellowship 2019 for Female Journalists (Funded to MIT, Boston USA)

Application Deadline: 7th March 2019

Offered annually? Yes


Eligible Countries: All

To be taken at (country): Center for International Studies at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) in Cambridge, Massachusetts

About the Award: The Elizabeth Neuffer Fellowship provides academic and professional opportunities to advance the reporting skills of women journalists who focus on human rights and social justice.
The Neuffer Fellowship is designed for affiliated or freelance women journalists with at least three years of professional experience in journalism working in print, broadcast, or digital media.
The Fellow will complete research and coursework at MIT’s Center for International Studies and journalism internships at The Boston Globe and The New York Times.
The flexible structure of the program will provide the fellow with opportunities to pursue academic research and hone her reporting skills.
Past fellows have taken advantage of opportunities to publish work under their byline through various media outlets.

Type: Fellowship (Career)

Eligibility: 
  • The Elizabeth Neuffer Fellowship is open to women journalists worldwide whose work focuses on human rights and social justice issues.
  • Journalists working in print, broadcast and/or Internet-based media, including freelancers, are eligible to apply.
  • Applicants must have a minimum of three years professional experience working full-time in news media. Internships do not count toward professional experience.
  • All nationalities are welcome to apply but non-native English speakers must have excellent written and verbal English skills in order to fully participate in and benefit from the program.
Selection: The fellow will be selected by a committee made up of family and friends of Elizabeth Neuffer and IWMF Advisory Council members. Consideration of candidates will be based on their complete applications, the caliber and promise of their reporting on human rights and social justice issues, and their personal statements explaining how the fellowship would be a transformative experience for their careers. Finalists for the fellowship may be interviewed by the IWMF and the Fellowship selection committee.

Number of Awardees: Not specified

Value of Fellowship: 
  • A fixed monthly stipend will be provided to cover housing, meals, and ground transportation during the fellowship.
  • Round-trip economy airfare will be purchased from the fellow’s place of residence to Washington, D.C., and from Washington, D.C., to the fellowship city.
  • The fellow will receive health insurance during the program.
  • The fellowship does not include a salary.
  • For fellows residing outside of the United States, the fellowship also covers the costs of applying for and obtaining a U.S. visa.
  • The fellow will be fully responsible for any additional incidental expenses and other costs.
During this fellowship, the selected journalist will have the chance to complete research and coursework at MIT’s Center for International Studies and participate in internships with media outlets including The Boston Globe and The New York Times. The flexible structure of the program allows Fellows to pursue academic research and hone reporting skills. Past Fellows have taken advantage of opportunities to publish work under their bylines through various media outlets. Fellows have explored a wide range of under-reported issues including gender-based violence, indigenous rights, and religious intolerance.

Duration of Fellowship: Seven months

How to Apply: Submit a complete online application form with the following information in link below.

Visit Fellowship Webpage for details

Award Provider:  The Boston Globe, New York Times,

Important Notes: Family members are welcome to accompany the fellow. However, the IWMF will not be responsible for any arrangements or expenses related to the travel and residence of family members, including support of visa applications.

Tomorrow’s Peacebuilders Awards 2019. USD10,000 Prize + Online Recognition

Application Deadline: 15th April 2019

Offered annually? Yes


Eligible Countries: All

About the Award: Tomorrow’s Peacebuilders awards are the global awards for local peacebuilding run by Peace Direct. Awarded annually, they offer international recognition for grassroots peace activists in conflict-affected countries worldwide. These are inspiring individuals who are building a better tomorrow for their communities, in the world’s most fragile and needy places.

This year, there will also be a photography prize to celebrate photos that illustrate the theme of ‘local peacebuilding’. The winning entry will receive $1,000 of camera equipment for the photo that best illustrates local peacebuilding in action, or best communicates this theme.
Previous winner Gatwal Gatkouth from Uganda said: “The Tomorrow’s Peacebuilders Awards means so much to my organisation. It marks a new beginning that outlines the fact that, no matter how small one starts an initiative, if the intentions are good, the world one day honours their efforts. We started very small, with so much passion, and before long Peace Direct put our work on the spotlight. We now have a very solid footing for 2019 and we anticipate to scale up our peace building work deep into the grassroots communities.”
One prize is available in each of the three categories below:
  • Women-led Peacebuilding
  • Youth-led Peacebuilding
  • Inter-Religious Peacebuilding
Offered Since: 2013

Type: Contests/Awards

Eligibility: These are global awards. There is no geographical restriction on applications. In order to be eligible to enter, you must:
  • Undertake peacebuilding work – your organisation is either a peacebuilding organisation or has peacebuilding as a substantial element of your work.
  • Be locally based – your organisation must be based in the country or communities where your work will be done. If your organisation operates in multiple countries, you are not eligible to enter. (Note cross-border projects are eligible.)
  • Be an independent organisation, not an in-country or satellite organisation of an international NGO.
  • Be working, or planning to work, in at least one of the following thematic areas: women-led peacebuilding; youth-led peacebuilding; or inter-religious peacebuilding.
Selection Process: Peacebuilders strongly recommends applying as early as possible. Peacebuilders will review applications as they are submitted to ensure they are complete and correct, therefore early applications enjoy this advantage and a greater chance of success.

Number of Awardees: 3 organisations

Value of Award: The winners receive global publicity and cash prizes. They are chosen by an international panel of experts including distinguished practitioners, political figures and media. Each winning entry will receive:
·         $10,000 prize funding for peacebuilding activities.
·         Promotion of their work online, including on the Insight on Conflict and Peace Direct websites and newsletters

How to Apply: Entry Forms can be found Here
Send completed applications by following the applic4ation procedure (See in Award Webpage link below).

Visit Award Webpage for details


Award Provider: Peace Direct

USADF-All On Nigeria Off-Grid Energy Challenge 2019

Application Deadline: 15th March 2019

Eligible Countries: African countries


About the Award: The Off-Grid Energy Challenge was launched in 2013 to bring affordable and renewable energy to rural communities across Africa. Since 2013, over $7 million has been invested in 75 energy entrepreneurs in 9 countries to provide off-grid energy solutions to rural communities
The Off-Grid Energy Challenge awards grants of up to $100,000 each to African enterprises providing off-grid solutions that deploy renewable resources and power local economic activities.  Challenge winners will have near-term solutions to power the needs of productive and commercial activities, including agriculture production and processing, off-farm businesses, and commercial enterprises.
Through the Challenge, USADF and its partners, including All On, General Electric (GE), and Power Africa support energy entrepreneurs in 9 countries across the continent, including Ethiopia, Ghana, Kenya, Liberia, Nigeria, Tanzania, Rwanda, Uganda and Zambia. To date, USADF has funded over 75 African energy entrepreneurs, totaling an investment of $7 million in off-grid energy solutions.

Type: Contest, Entrepreneurship

Eligibility: 
  • Applicants should be developing, scaling up or extending energy technologies to off-grid areas of Nigeria.
  • applicants must be 100% African-owned, majority Nigerian-owned and managed private companies registered in Nigeria, and must be operating in Nigeria.
Number of Awards: Not specified

Value of Award: Maximum award US $100,000

How to Apply: 
  • DOWNLOAD THE APPLICATION AND REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS (Links in the Program Webpage Link below)
  • In order to apply, applicants should submit the below application template, as well as the required attachments, to OffGridChallengeNigeria@usadf.gov by March 15, 2019.
Visit the Program Webpage for Details

Berlin Energy Transition Dialogue (BETD) Media Fellowship 2019 for Journalists – All expenses paid

Application Deadline: 24th February 2019

Eligible Countries: All


To be taken at (country): Germany

About the Award: On 9–10 April 2019, the German Government invites the world to the annual inspiring dialogue on the global energy transition, the Berlin Energy Transition Dialogue (#betd2019). Every year, high-level participants from politics, industry, science and civil society gather in Berlin for two days to discuss the shift to a sustainable energy system. This year’s focus will be on:
• shifting geopolitics,
• integrated energy transition,
• structural change
• and digitalisation and blockchain
.  


Type: Workshop, Fellowship

Eligibility:

Number of Awards: Limited

Value of Award: The BETD Media Fellowship allows young journalists from around the world to come to Berlin and
• gain access to this exclusive conference,
• talk to high-level global energy stakeholders,
• connect with the other BETD Media Fellows,
• and experience the energy transition hands-on with exclusive guided tours and side events during the Berlin Energy Week (8–12 April 2019).


During the conference, the BETD Media Fellows will report on the conference sessions through
• social media channels, especially Twitter,
• video clips, interviews and reports,
• and the official website.

In addition, BETD Media Fellows will have the opportunity to submit photos, stories and interviews and to report on energy-related stories from their own countries.

The German Government will cover travel costs including board and lodging.

Duration of Programme: 8–12 April 2019
How to Apply: 
  • It is important to go through all application requirements on the Programme Webpage (see link below) before applying
Visit Programme Webpage for Details

Award Provider: Germany Government

Estonian Government Short Course Scholarships for International Students 2019/2020

Application Deadline: 19th March 2019

Offered annually? Yes


Eligible Countries: International

To be taken at (University): 
  • University of Tartu
  • Tallinn University
  • Tallinn University of Technology
  • Courses in Estonian Academy of Arts
About the Award: The scholarships are intended to support participation in summer courses of Estonian language and culture as well as in courses of summer and winter schools related to the English-language curricula of degree study in Estonia.

Type: Short Courses.

Eligibility: 
  • The stipend is available for students of Bachelor’s, Master’s or doctoral studies in foreign universities who are actively involved in the studies at the time of application and have been studying at university for at least one year.
  • During the period of payment of grant the scholarship recipient should stay in Estonia.
  • The candidate should pre-register to the course for applying for the scholarship.
Number of Awardees: Not specified

Value of Scholarship: The scholarship is used to reimburse up to 500 EUR of the course fee and accommodation costs of 25 EUR per day for a maximum of 28 days per secondment in a calendar year.

How to Apply: In case of short courses the following documents shall be submitted (Application period is from 19.02.2019 to 19.03.2019):
  • application form and motivation letter through online application system (please register to start the application);
  • confirmation of admission from the organising higher education institution in Estonia (can be sent by e-mail) or confirmation of submission of required admission documents;
  • confirmation of registration from home university containing information on the applicant’s level of study, normal period of studies and progress towards the degree;
  • copy of passport or ID-card.
All documents should be in English or Estonian.
All documents should be in English or Estonian. Documents must be translated to any of these languages if the language of issuance is different. The foundation has the right to require the additional documents. Submitted documents will be not returned to the applicant. The applications which are not full complicated, drawn up as required, include false information or arrive with delay are not assessed.

The application system link: https://taotlused.archimedes.ee/EN/pub_login.php. Please register in order to start the application.

Visit Scholarship Webpage for details


Award Provider: Estonian Government

US Racism and Imperialism Fuel Turbulence in Haiti

W.T. Whitney Jr.

Beginning on February 7, Haitians have been in the streets protesting against corruption, high prices, shortages, inflation, and power outages. Demonstrators are demanding that President Jovenel Moïse, in power since January 2017, resign. Moïse blames the disturbances on “armed groups and drug traffickers” and is calling for negotiation.
Facing police brutality, masses of Haitians have blocked roads, stoned officials, burned vehicles, and ransacked stores; nine are dead and over 100 wounded. Food and drinkable water are scarce.  The United States withdrew non-emergency diplomatic representatives and issued travel warnings. The Trump administration indicated humanitarian aid may be on the way.
Haitians protested massively in October, 2018 after the highly indebted government raised gasoline prices.  It was complying with instructions from the International Monetary Fund in order to obtain low-interest loans. The protests forced a reversal of the price hike and continued.
Currently the Haitian people’s main complaint is corruption arising out of a 2006 oil deal with Venezuela. Haiti, led by President René Préval,was one of 17 countries joining Venezuela’s Petrocaribe project. The agreement called for Haiti to pay for 60 percent of the oil within 90 days and the remainder after 25 years at 1% interest. Haiti presently owes Venezuela $2 billion.
The government sold the oil to private entities and accumulated some $4 billion in funds. The idea was to use the money for sanitation, health care, education, infrastructure, and agricultural innovations. Needs mounted after the 2010 earthquake.
The funds were “misused, misappropriated, or embezzled by government officials and their cronies,” according to reports released by the Haitian Senate in 2017.  Money flowed into the coffers of President Moïse’s business and into the hands of leaders of the political party formed by Michel Martelly, Moïse’s predecessor as President.
Haiti’s involvement with PetroCaribe ended in October 2017. U.S. anti-Venezuela sanctions had prevented Haiti from paying on its oil bill with Venezuela – or “gave them a golden excuse not to,” according to close Haiti observer Kim Ives“Life in Haiti,” he writes, “which was already extremely difficult, now became untenable.” Ives castigates Haiti’s January 10 vote at the Organization of American States as “cynical betrayal by Moïse and his cronies.” That day Haiti supported a U.S. motion declaring President Maduro’s Venezuelan government to be “illegitimate.” Ives asserts that for deeply unhappy Haitians, “treachery against the Venezuelans after their exemplary solidarity … was the last straw.”
These troubles play out amid social disaster. For example, some 80 percent of Haitians live in poverty. Income inequality in Haiti, as reflected by the Gini index,rates as the world’s fourth most extreme case. Life expectancy ranks 154th in the world, And 40 percent of Haitians depend on agricultural income, while 80 percent of farms can’t feed families living on them.
This account now turns to background information. To begin:  Michel Martelly became president courtesy of the U.S. government. Taking advantage of heightened distress in Haiti after the 2010 earthquake, the Obama administration retaliated against then president René Préval. His offense was to have cooperated with the Venezuelan government of President Chavez in the matter of cheap oil.
Endorsed by military and paramilitary leaders, Martelly was able to compete in the 2010 presidential elections only after the Organization of American States and the U.S. government strong-armed Haiti’s Provisional Electoral Council. Secretary of State Clinton flew to Port-au-Prince to urge Préval “to get out of the way.”
In 2015 Martelly protégée Jovenel Moïse was elected president. As shown by legal observers from abroad, voting was marked by a 26 percent voter turnout, irregular procedures at the polls, and 50 percent fake ballots. The Electoral Council diagnosed fraud, appointed an interim president, and set repeat presidential elections for November 2016. Moïsewon. The turn out was 21 percent. In Haiti, consequently, “there’s a huge apathy when it comes to elections.”
It wasn’t always that way. Progressive theologian Jean-Bertrand Aristide became president in 1990 with 67 percent of the vote.  A U.S. – engineered military coup removed him eight months later. Paramilitaries led by CIA associate Emmanuel Constant subjected Aristide’s supporters to a reign of terror. He was re-elected in 2000 with a 92 percent plurality. Paramilitaries kidnapped him in 2004, again under U.S. auspices. The U.S. government transported him to the Central African Republic.
The United States isn’t alone in abusing Haiti’s national sovereignty. Soldiers of a United Nations “stabilization mission” arrived shortly after Aristide’s removal and stayed until 2017. Those troops introduced a cholera epidemic which added to Haiti’s woes.
What remains at this point is to explore the origins of Haiti’s chronic difficulties. The establishment-oriented U.S. Council on Foreign Relations recently – and reasonably – took note off actors like foreign intervention, debt, “instability,” and natural disasters. But analyst Amy Wilentz goes to the essence of the problem, indirectly. Often the question regarding Haiti, she suggests, is: “How does a state fail?” She explains that “a state fails because of its history,” and not “because of some innate inferiority in its people.”
She thus politely refutes claims from those focused mainly on the fact that Black people established and have maintained the Haitian nation. Such views, racist in nature, point to the role of racism in thwarting Haiti’s development.  Wilentz’s explanation as to a failed state needs modifying. It ought to say: “a state may fail because of a history of racist assaults.”
When Haiti declared its independence in 1804, formerly enslaved people were free.  France sought to recoup the money its citizens lost when slaves no longer were property. Threatening to blockade Haiti, France forced Haiti to provide compensation and thus Haiti’s government between 1825 and 1947 paid France a total of $20 billion to settle the matter. Big question: what ethos other than white supremacy might induce high officials to assign monetary value to human beings who now, like white people, were ostensibly free?
Haiti became an independent republic in 1804, but it was not until 1862 that the United States extended diplomatic recognition and not until 1863 that U. S. economic sanctions were lifted. Racist attitudes were on display when the United States invaded Cuba in 1898. That was the heyday of Jim Crow, and a leading rationale was that of forestalling another black republic.”  The rebel army included tens of thousands of Afro-Cubans.
The U.S. Army occupied Haiti for 19 years beginning in 1915. The advertised purpose was that of enforcing payments on debts owed to New York banks. But U.S. troops viciously employed torture and massacres as they squashed rebellions and uprisings.
Presidents Duvalier, father and son, ruled in Haiti between 1957 and 1986. They imposed murderous oppression, something that in Washington was purified through the rationale of anti-communism. In fact, U.S. actions in Haiti often have included elements of both racism and imperialism. The boundaries tend to blur.
Nevertheless, U.S. memories of Haiti helped to shape white America’s attitudes toward race. “American slaveholders trembled for their own security as they followed the tremendous revolutionary activity of the French West Indian slaves in the 1790’s.” (Herbert Aptheker – American Negro Slave Revolts) And in his biography of John Brown, ally of slaves, W.E. B. Du Bois states that Brown “was born just as the shudder of Hayti (sic) was running through all the Americas.”
Haiti became a special case, and still is – much to the suffering of the Haitian people.